Re: [Idr] [internet-drafts@ietf.org: I-D Action: draft-haas-idr-extended-experimental-00.txt]

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Tue, 01 November 2016 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9DC129801 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ef5Na-tTbTkK for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1B3A129856 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:38:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: idr@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.local (089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id uA1IcVWO029657 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:38:32 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-070074.ntlworld.ie [89.101.70.74] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
Message-ID: <5818E126.2090202@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 18:38:30 +0000
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.5 (Macintosh/20161020)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
References: <20161031205515.GA25507@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20161031205515.GA25507@pfrc.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/UfsHaeLy-JuhqJyEzGXjN6-n6sw>
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] [internet-drafts@ietf.org: I-D Action: draft-haas-idr-extended-experimental-00.txt]
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 18:38:43 -0000

Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> There's a larger conversation to be had about proper stewardship and use of
> code points of all sorts, but path attributes have our attention for the
> moment.
> 
> A quick draft for consideration and to motivate discussion.

this is an interesting approach and I like it.  Despite the warnings in
the document, vendors are likely to want to do vendor-specific things on
a permanent basis, but this is probably unavoidable and not necessarily
a bad thing either - there are plenty of other situations where
vendor-specific attributes are used to good effect.

I'd like to see this idea progress.

Nick